Talk:For a Lost Soldier

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by DocZach (talk · contribs) on 13 February 2024.

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the War films task force.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Military history: War films / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	War films task force
	World War II task force

Untitled comments

The title of this should be in English, and the parenthetic should be the Dutch. If no one objects, I'm going to move it sometime soon. This is the English Wikipedia after all. --DanielCD 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page to English title.--NeilEvans 18:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt's last name

In the (English translation, paperback edition) of the book, we learn that Walt's full name is Walter P. Narbutus (page 137). 76.124.111.230 (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)buddmar[reply]

This article seems to glorify pedophilia.

Out of all of the films that could have a Criticism section, this one would be one of the top ones that need it. Are we just going to ignore the fact that this film is literally about a pedophilic relationship between an 11 to 12-year-old boy and 20-30-year-old adult soldier, and that the film shows the adult having anal intercourse with the child (which is a form of rape)? And why in the world did the article previously state the relationship was just "between two teens." The persistence to keep this article as friendly and non-critical as possibly, and the decision to classify it under LGBT studies when pedophilia is not a part of LGBT, is quite strange and absurd. DocZach (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Jeroen, however, feeling that Walt is about to undress, sneaks into his room, resulting in the two making love."

Who put this line in the plot summary? Since when did we consider pedophilia to just be "making love?" Seriously? DocZach (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reception of this movie in 1992 is weird; apparently audiences and critics at the time thought differently about relationships with 12 year olds? I looked at several contemporary reviews on newspapers.com, and none of them responded with outrage.

That being said: you can't delete a page about a movie just because you don't like the content of the movie, and you can't express your personal outrage in the article without reliable secondary sources. Toughpigs (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it is clearly not a well-known film. If it was more well-know, there would be TONS of criticism. There is still a major problem with the wording in this article. The plot summary is outrageously long for this type of film, and it does nothing but glorify the relationship.

This was what was in the plot summary until I removed it:

""Jeroen, however, feeling that Walt is about to undress, sneaks into his room, resulting in the two making love.""

Since when was pedophilia just "making love?" DocZach (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with your edit that changed it to "have sex" rather than "making love", which is still in keeping with the tone and themes of the film. I think your other change of "which proceeded into Walt having sexual intercourse with the young child" is outside the film's pov.

I think that the framing of the article should be neutral, and the plot summary should reflect the film as it is. If the film glorifies that relationship, then yeah, the plot summary is going to lean in that direction. Toughpigs (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention that NAMBLA literally endorsed this film too? DocZach (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nobody thought of it. Do you have a source for that? Toughpigs (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that addition totally works. Shame about the citation being blocked, though. Toughpigs (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to help try to add a citation? Maybe without the link itself? Idk how to do it without it being automatic. DocZach (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I put it in as text without the link. Toughpigs (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't know if there's a policy about referring to NAMBLA's website — it's never come up for me before — so somebody else may have objections. Toughpigs (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, on second thought, I've removed the NAMBLA info. I'm not familiar with the guideline around it, but if the site is blocked, it's probably because it's a political dog whistle that's used to target gay people. I don't think that we should promote either the organization itself, or the political POV that uses it as a weapon. Toughpigs (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that it is a "political dog whistle that's used to target gay people" is nonsensical and quite offensive. NAMBLA is a pedophilia organization, they are not a gay rights organization. For the context of this article, it is important to include that paragraph to show how many people took this movie to be somewhat of a toleration or promotion of pedophilia. DocZach (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this: How many articles on Wikipedia should include the opinions and perspective of NAMBLA? Is this the only one, or would you like NAMBLA to be cited on many pages?

My feeling is that we should include NAMBLA's perspective on zero pages. Toughpigs (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a film is about pedophilia, and that film was praised and reviewed by NAMBLA, including it provides vital context to how different people took this film. Wikipedia is not censored. DocZach (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm giving up, lol.

Someone's been really frigging smart by adding a link to another plot summary as a source to make their belief irrefutable, lol; an online summary falsely claiming the character is an adult still doesn't make him one, though – judging by his behavior, several of his statements and the actor's physical appearance, he's like 16 or something (his name might also hint to him having been born shortly after the character of Mickey Mouse had premiered, which would make him 16 or 15). Since Wikipedia, however, doesn't rely on facts but on sources (not meant in a rude way), I'm not gonna fix it again (and again and again 🤭) but, me being a nice person, gonna let my keen opponent (pun not intended, though funny) enjoy their "triumph" 🏅👏 2A02:3037:318:D67A:77D8:B4B6:5A34:2A43 (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for writing this. I'll try to figure out what happened here -- what was the link to the online plot summary? Toughpigs (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I figured that out. It seems like there are different claims about how old this character is. I changed it to "a young soldier" (which could be teenage or young adult) instead of "an adult soldier". Let me know if you have more thoughts about this. Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb states, "Set in The Netherlands at the end of WW II, this touching story, told in flashbacks, explores the complex and romantic relationship between an adult soldier and a displaced, lonely adolescent boy." (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108504/)

New York Times states, "Roeland Kerbosch's film "For a Lost Soldier" takes up the most delicate of subjects, a romantic relationship between a grown-up and a child [emphasis added], and invests it with an aching tenderness that stays just this side of nostalgic mush." (https://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/07/movies/review-film-treating-a-delicate-story-of-a-soldier-and-a-boy-tenderly.html)

Los Angeles Times states, "Among them is a handsome, sturdy Canadian named Walt (Andrew Kelley), who looks to be about 20 [emphasis added]. The attraction between them is immediate."

Almost all reliable sources about this topic describe Walt as an adult Canadian soldier. Therefore, your change was unprecedented and unreasonable, and the idea that Walt is only 16 literally comes from absolutely nowhere. DocZach (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]